The Influence of Different Concentrations of Fuel Composition On The Thrust Produced by Model Rockets

The Influence of Different Concentrations
of Fuel Composition on the Thrust

Produced by Model Rockets
Written By :
Christopher Yonathan / 4
Ito Kazutoshi / 15
Johan Untawidjaja / 17
Jordan Imanuel Adipurbo / 18
Santa Laurensia School
Alam Sutera - Pakulonan - Serpong Utara - Tangerang Selatan - Banten

Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Validity Sheet
Title of Research : The Influence of Different Concentrations of Fuel Composition on

the Thrust Produced by Model Rockets
Research Team : Christopher Yonathan, Ito Kazutoshi, Johan Untawidjaja, Jordan
Imanuel Adipurbo
Class : IX D
7 October, 2021
Research Leader
———————————————
Johan Untawidjaja
Advisor and Mentor Language Advisor
——————————————— ———————————————
Inge Diredja Quindarta Yudi Atmanta
Acknowledgement
Principal of Santa Laurensia Junior High School
———————————————
Stevanus Liverdy
Santa Laurensia, Alam Sutera, Pakulonan, Serpong Utara, Tangerang Selatan, Banten, 2022
Johan Untawidjaja Christopher Yonathan
Ito Kazutoshi Jordan Imanuel Adipurbo
1
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Preface
First of all, we would like to thank God Almighty for the completion of our research
project. Our research entitled "The Influence of Different Concentrations of Fuel
Composition on the Thrust Produced by Model Rockets” discusses the chemical reaction of
potassium nitrate and sucrose when exposed to enough heat; the reaction then will combust
and release energy. This research focuses on finding the best ratio of potassium nitrate to
sucrose to produce efficient thrust, energy, and create an effective explosion for weaponizable
possibilities. The best ratio is determined using a series of calculations, and tested to launch
our model rocket.
Of course, this research would not have been completed without our advisor and
mentor Ms. Inge Diredja who has guided us in the making of this research, and our language
advisor Mr. Quindarta Yudi Atmanta who has edited this paper. Last but not least, we would
also like to thank our researchers and others who contributed to this research. This research
can also be completed thanks to the good cooperation of all members of this research team.
Finally, we would like to apologize if there are errors or missing information in our
research. Therefore, if readers find errors or deficiencies in our research, readers are welcome
to provide input so that we can develop our research to be better. We hope that this research
can be read and used to develop the best ratio of the chemical reaction, as well as invoke a
larger understanding of how it works, so that it becomes effective, and show a greater
promise for future implementations as well as further research.
Tangerang Selatan, 7 October, 2021.

Research Team
2
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Abstract
The title of this research is “The Influence of Different Concentrations of Fuel Composition
on the Thrust Produced by Model Rockets.” This research is done to acquire the best ratio of
potassium nitrate and sugar to generate thrust, energy, and create an effective explosion. The goal of
this research is to expand the knowledge of potassium nitrate and sugar chemical reactions as well as
the basis of future research for rocket propulsion technology in space and as an efficient energy
source. The aim is to create the best ratio for rocket fuel. Here the term "best" means the ratio of sugar
to potassium nitrate that generates the most amount of thrust while also considering the fly time. This
research is using a balanced chemical reaction of sugar and potassium nitrate to create a fire, with
sugar being the fuel and potassium being the oxidizer. This chemical reaction not only releases heat
but also water vapor and carbon dioxide. Now to the calculation of the energy. Here various equations
are used to predict the values of certain properties of the rocket engine. The ratios that are observed
are 65% sugar and 35 % potassium nitrate, 76% potassium nitrate, and 24% sugar. The drag force
term is also observed to make sure the equations of the rocket are sound and not broken due to the
unaccounted term of air resistance. Here the maximum height or the theoretical height of the rocket is
also accounted for. This is then compared to the experimental value, to find the efficiency of the
rocket fuel. In this research, the weaponizable possibilities are explored, although very discouraged in
being used. The hypothesis in this experiment is that if the best ratio is used, then the rocket will
generate the most amount of thrust. To continue, our research will be using quantitative data analysis
and will involve our data being imputed to a series of calculations to find the force of our rocket
engines, and determine the successfulness of our prototype. Our prototype model rocket and rocket
engines were constructed using videos by “The King of Random.” Furthermore, our research includes
the standards of control, independent, and dependent variables; however, it does not include a control
group. Lastly, all materials and apparatuses were bought from online stores. Moving forward, the
results of this experiment indicate that ratio 1 is efficient at fully reacting, and leaving no observable
unreacted material while ratio 2 is not. Besides that, the burn time of either ratios are proven to be
ineffective; with ratio 1 having a consistent, but slow average burn time, and ratio 2 having a faster,
but inconsistent average burn time that produces no better thrust than ratio 1. This results in both
ratios being incapable of producing enough force to lift the rocket since both rocket engine ratios
could not lift just themselves either. To sum up, it has been concluded that ratio 1 is most efficient at
completing its reaction, has a more reliable, but slow burn time compared with ratio 2, as well as
exerts a larger average force than ratio 2. Furthermore, it has been understood that these rocket
engines are not able to lift the rocket because of insufficient thrust. Certain factors are thought to have
caused the insufficiency in thrust, and in turn, caused the incapability of launching the rocket. Several
factors that could impact the rocket engine’s performance include human error and external
environmental factors. Overall, based on our findings, fertilizer or potassium nitrate can be combined
with sugar or sucrose along with heat to indeed create an effective flammable chemical reaction. In
conclusion, the results of our experiments stipulate that our rocket engine can generate energy
efficiently; which was proven in figure 4.2.1.1 where the graph suggests that the chemical reaction of
ratio 1 went on to combust nearly all the reactant, leaving no observable unreacted material. Whereas,
as expected, ratio 2 was proven not to be able to perform the chemical reaction to its fullest extent. In
this case, it can be concluded that ratio 1 was the best out of the two, which proves that our hypothesis
was accurate. However, our rocket engine built with either ratio 1 or 2 was not able to generate
enough thrust to lift itself or our model rocket. Besides that, theoretically, our research using ratio 1
can also create high-grade explosives although not tested to that extent.
3
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Table of Contents
Validity Sheet 1
Preface 2
Abstract 3
Table of Contents 4
Table of Tables & Graphs 6
Chapter 1 Introduction 8
1.1 Background 8
1.2 Research Problem 8
1.3 The purpose of the research 9
1.4 Significant of the research 9
1.5 Boundaries of research 9
1.6 Thesis statement 9
1.7 Logic of Thinking 10
Chapter 2 Literature Review 11
2.1. Potassium Nitrate and Sugar Chemical Reaction 11
2.2. Measurement of Energy 12
2.2.1 Calculation of Total Energy Release 14
2.3 Different Concentrations of Potassium Nitrate to Sugar 16
2.4 Rocket Engine Specifications 16
2.5 Enthalpy of the Rocket Fuel 16
2.6 Total Efficiency of the Reaction 21
2.6.1 Drag Force Term 21
2.6.1.1 Maximum Height Achievable by the Rocket 21
2.7 Weaponizable possibilities 23
2.8 Hypothesis 25
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology 26
4
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
3.1. Place & Time 26

3.2. Method 26
3.3. Variables 27
3.4. Research Instruments 27
3.4.1. Apparatus 27
3.4.2. Materials 28
3.5. Research Procedure 28
3.5.1. Working Process 28
3.5.2. Data Analysis Technique 29
Chapter 4 Data Analysis 30
4.1 Testing the Chemical Reaction 30
4.2 Graph and Analysis 32
4.2.1 Mass Before and After The Experiment 32
4.2.1.1 Change of Mass of Ratio 1 33
4.2.1.2 Change of Mass of Ratio 2 34
4.2.2 Burn Time 35
4.2.2.1 Burn Time of Ratio 1 35
4.2.2.2 Burn Time Ratio 2 36
4.2.3 Resulting Force 37
4.2.3.1 Force Result of Ratio 1 37
4.2.3.2 Force Result of Ratio 2 38
4.3 The Most Efficient Ratio 38
4.4 Error Analysis 39
Chapter 5 Conclusion 40
5.1 Conclusion 40
5.2 Suggestions 40
5.3 Future Work 40
References 41
5
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Table of Tables, Graphs, & Figures

Figure 2.8 Sugar Rocket Demonstration 28
Table 4.1 Ratio 1 and 2 Mass in Grams 30
Table 4.1 - 2 Ratio 1 and 2 Mass in Kilograms 30
Figure 4.2.1.1 Mass Before and After Experiment of Ratio 1 33
Figure 4.2.1.2 Mass Before and After Experiment of Ratio 2 34
Figure 4.2.2.1 Burn Time of Ratio 1 35
Figure 4.2.2.1 Burn Time of Ratio 2 36
Figure 4.2.3.1 Resulting Forces in Ratio 1 37
Figure 4.2.3.2 Resulting Forces in Ratio 2 38
6
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
The researchers were inspired by “The King Of Random” on YouTube to create an
experiment to find the best ratio of sugar to potassium nitrate to create rockets and even missiles.
Thus, the current study would like to test the new grounds of this chemical mixture for this field is not
that popular. Other than that, the field of utilizing potassium nitrate and sugar has not been explored
thoroughly and to its full potential. Furthermore, the lack of information about the effects of different
ratios of sugar to potassium nitrate.
Moreover, the chemical mixture only consists of potassium nitrate (KNO3) and table sugar
(C12H22O11) as well as heat to provoke and start the reaction. The potassium nitrate is not only the
oxidizer but also the only source of oxygen in the chemical reaction, therefore this chemical reaction
can withstand the lack of oxygen in space. By doing this experiment, we would be able to provide the
internet with the best ratio of potassium nitrate and sugar concentration to efficiently generate thrust,
energy, and even high grade explosives. Lastly, since this research would test the new grounds of this
chemical mixture, the researchers would discover more data that someday could be used for a greater
purpose, such as space travel, or more efficient energy generation in the foreseeable future.
1.2 Research Problem

Problem statement :
There are few expert sources online where people experiment using potassium nitrate and
sugar. However, there is not much information regarding the chemical reaction itself on the
internet; this field of experimentation has also not been fully explored and not used to its full
extent.
Research problem :
What is the best ratio of potassium nitrate and sugar to generate thrust, energy, and create an
effective explosion?1
1
Although here we do explore the possibilities of a highly explosive weapon, we do not encourage the pursuit of
an explosive through our explanations and assumptions.
7
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
1.3 The purpose of the research

To find the best ratio of potassium nitrate and sugar to generate thrust, energy, and create an
effective explosion.
1.4 Significant of the research

- This research will theoretically expand the knowledge of potassium nitrate and sugar
chemical reactions.
- This research could practically be implemented into future research for rocket propulsion
technology in space and as an efficient energy source.
1.5 Boundaries of research

- This experiment will not be making any weapons.
- The potassium nitrate that is used will be ignited in the chemical reaction
- The table sugar used in this experiment will be taken from Tokopedia
- The effectiveness of the fuel will be checked by the theoretical amount of energy that we
calculated from the enthalpy and the result of the experiment
1.6 Thesis statement

The components potassium nitrate and sugar are combined to create a chemical reaction that
generates thrust, and as well as energy. We try to find the best ratio of sugar to potassium
nitrate that creates the best rocket fuel. In this context, the term "best" means the ratio of sugar
to potassium nitrate that creates the best ratio of fly time to force.
8
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
1.7 Logic of Thinking
9
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1. Potassium Nitrate and Sugar Chemical Reaction
Figure 2.1 Potassium Nitrate and Sugar Chemical Reaction (Straub, n.d.)
Potassium nitrate (KNO3) and sugar (C12H22O11) is a chemical reaction that ignites when
exposed to enough heat. The potassium nitrate is the oxidizer and the only source of oxygen (if in
space) in the chemical reaction. The chemical reaction releases heat, carbon dioxide, and water in the
form of steam.
2.2. Measurement of Energy
Based on BYJU’S (n.d.), the energy equation for the rocket is:
E=Fxd
E=mxaxd
At t the mass will be mt and so does the at making:
E = mt x at x h
10
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
By taking the ratio of decreasing mass as dm / dt, the total mass during the process will follow
the geometric series as :
𝑚0 𝑑𝑚
E= 𝑚0
× (m0-(( 𝑑𝑡
)×t)) x at x h
Knowing that the a = f / m, while the m term is decreasing during the burn time, so the total
acceleration will increase and follow the geometric series as :
E=mxaxh
𝑚0 𝑑𝑚 𝑎0
E = ( 𝑚0 ×(m0-( 𝑑𝑡
)×t)) x ( 𝑑𝑚 ) × m0) x h
(𝑚0−( 𝑑𝑡
)×𝑡) × 𝑚0
Therefore we would arrive to the equation of2:
𝑑𝑚 𝑚0
E= (m0-(( 𝑑𝑡
)×t)× (a0 × ( 𝑑𝑚 ))) × h
(𝑚0 − (( 𝑑𝑡
) × 𝑡 ))
However, if we were to take the a0 from af then we would divide af by the same factor that we
𝑑𝑚
multiplied with a0. Meaning we would get af × (m0-( 𝑑𝑡
) × t) / m0, and taking to the extreme and
assuming t to be tf then af would be multiplied by 0 and divided by m0 and since anything multiplied
by 0 is 0, then a0 must be 0, as intuition would state3.
And seeing that the graph for the acceleration is a multiplicative graph, then we can't use a0,
and taking into account that the whole equation doesn't actually account for time because things
cancel out, we decided to use the energy of enthalpy that we calculated. And therefore revising our
previous equation to4:
𝑑𝑚 𝑑(2𝐾𝐸𝑒/𝑚)½
E = (m0-( 𝑑𝑡
)×t) × ( 𝑑𝑡
)×h
As we can see, there is a new variable, KE and we get this by calculating the energy needed to
heat the sugar and potassium nitrate by using shc, and subtracting the energy of enthalpy by that
factor. And here we are also assuming that while calculating the energy needed to heat up the sugar
and potassium nitrate, that there are no emergent properties that would affect the results. So the
equation to get KE is:
2
Here and for further purposes, the leftover mass or m0-(dm/dt) × t is denoted as mt.
3
From here on as well, if a variable is added a “0” or “i”, then it means the initial of that variable. Furthermore,
if a variable is paired with a “f”, then it most likely means the final value for that certain variable.
4
In this paper, the term “KE'' means the kinetic energy of the rocket.
11
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
𝑚𝑠 𝑚𝑝
KE = E-((((( 𝑚0 )×shcs)+(( 𝑚0 )×shcp))×m0×1,474.5)
And now if we wish to differentiate, what is essentially the velocity term of the whole
equation then we would get:
2𝐾𝐸
V=(( 𝑚
)½)
=2KE^½×m^-½
Now here we denote the m term to the power of negative half instead of 1 over square root, to
simplify the whole process. Now we can accept the m term of the equation as 2 functions of the time
variable and use the chain rule. Which would give us:
3 𝑑𝑚
A=2KE^½×-½m^- 2 ×- 𝑑𝑡
So we would get the force equation as follows:
3 𝑑𝑚 𝑑𝑚
F=((2KE)^½)×((-½)m^- 2 )×(- 𝑑𝑡
t)×(m0-( 𝑑𝑡
)×t)
2.2.1 Calculation of Total Energy Release
The researchers are using an average temperature measurement from the internet about how hot
the sugar rocket can get due to the “limited temperature recording apparatuses,” which was also
implemented by Foltran, Moro, Silva, Ferreira, Araki, & Marchi (2015). We also take the average in
mass here, just to put in perspective the energy used for heat in the chemical reaction. However, since
this term would also rely on the initial mass of the rocket then we would have to update the equation
to the following5:
𝑚𝑠 𝑚𝑝 3 𝑑𝑚 𝑑𝑚
F=((2(((((( 𝑚0 )×shcs)+(( 𝑚0 )×shcp))×m0×1,474.5)))^½)×((-½)m^- 2 )×(- 𝑑𝑡
)×(m0-( 𝑑𝑡
)×t)
Assume:
- Temperature : 1500 Celsius
- SHC of potassium nitrate : 1.43 J/g °C (Chieruzzi, Miliozzi, Crescenzi, Torre, & Kenny,
2015)
- SHC of sucrose : 1.244 J/g/°C (Jayes, n.d.)
- Q = m×shc×dT (Szyk, n.d)
5
Here we might use the letter “Q” and “E” interchangeably, but they both mean energy.
12
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Amount of Energy Released ( 73.73271889% ( 34.16 g potassium nitrate ) to 26.26728111% (

12.17 g Sugar )
Based on the Rule of mixtures (2021), the rule of mixtures is :
𝑚1 𝑚2
Cm=( 𝑚𝑡
)c1+( 𝑚𝑡
)c2
Cm=73.73271889%×1.43+26.26728111%×1.244
=1.3811428571
Q=70×1.3811428571×1 474.5
=142,554.65999558 J
KE= -160,984.9850534-(-142,554.65999558)
=18,430.32505782 J
Amount of Energy Released ( 65 % ( 84.63 g ) to 35% ( 45.57 g ) ratio of sugar to potassium

nitrate )
Based on the Rule of mixtures (2021), the rule of mixtures is :
𝑚1 𝑚2
Cm=( 𝑚𝑡
)c1+( 𝑚𝑡
)c2
Cm=65%×1.244+35%×1.43
=1.3091
Q=70×1.3091×1 474.5
=135,118.7565 J
KE= -29,673.5987261-(-135,118.7565)
=105,445.1577739 J
13
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
2.3 Different Concentrations of Potassium Nitrate to Sugar

The higher the concentration of potassium nitrate the higher the force generated up until the
balanced reaction, although if the potassium nitrate concentration is increased then the fly time of the
rocket will decrease inversely proportional to the force. As it is said by professor Straub (n.d.), "A
mixture of sugar and potassium nitrate is a good rocket fuel as it represents the reaction of solids
(nitrate and sugar) to form gasses (carbon dioxide and water). The expansion creates thrust that is
used to power the rocket!"
2.4 Rocket Engine Specifications

We built a rocket engine using a ¾ inch6 pvc riser that is screwable onto a pvc coupling to be
attached easily to the rocket. The pvc riser we are using has a volume 39.878 cm3. “The pvc riser will
have caps 1 inch thick on both ends, leaving 23.9268 cm3 for the white mix that will be the fuel. The
rocket then will be drilled from one end to another but not fully penetrating it,” according to Smiley
(2013).
2.5 Enthalpy of the Rocket Fuel

“The standard enthalpy of formation is the change of enthalpy when 1 mole of a substance is
formed at a certain state,” according to Smiley (2013).
The balanced reaction for the chemical reaction of sugar and potassium nitrate is:
5 C12H22O11 + 48 KNO3 => 24 K2CO3 + 24 N2 + 55 H2O + 36 CO2
Enthalpy of formation:
- Sucrose : -2221 (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2021)
- Potassium Nitrate : -494 (Property of Substance, n.d.)
- Potassium Carbonate : -1150.18 (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2021)
- Nitrogen : 0 (Bhattacharjee, 2009)
- Water : -285.820 (Bhattacharjee, 2009)
- Carbon Dioxide : -393.5 (Bhattacharjee, 2009)
6
Converting it to the metric system, it would be 1.905 cm
14
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Chemical reaction – ( 73.733% ( 96 g ) to 26.267% ( 34.2 g ) ratio of potassium nitrate to sugar )
Molar mass of Sugar Molar mass of potassium nitrate
12 x 12 = 144 39 + 14 + 16(3) =
1 x 22 = 22 39 + 14 + 48 = 101 molar mass
11 x 16 = 176 48/5 = 9.6
144 + 22 + 176 = 342 molar mass 9.6 x 0.1 = 0.96 mol
5/48 = 0.1 mol 0.96 x 101 = 96 g
0.1 x 342 = 34.2 g
Potassium Carbonate : Water :
24/48 = 0.5 55/48 = 1.14
0.5 x 0.96 = 0.48 mol 1.14 x 0.96 = 1.0944 mol
138 x 0.48 = 66.24 g 18 x 1.0944 = 19.09 g
Nitrogen : Carbon Dioxide :
24/48 = 0.5 36/48 = 0.75
0.5 x 0.96 = 0.48 mol 0.75 x 0.96 = 0.72 mol
28 x 0.48 = 13.44 g 44 x 0.72 = 31.68 g
15
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Mass of Rocket Fuel Specification
34.2 g of Sucrose : 21.64 cm3 Mass of Fuel :
96 g of Potassium Nitrate : 45.5 cm3 34.2 / 2.81 = 12.1708185053 g
21.64 + 45.5 = 67.14 cm3 ≈ 12.17 g
67.14 / 23.9268 = 2.8060584784 96 / 2.81 = 34.1637010676 g
≈ 2.81 ≈ 34.16 g
Enthalpy
Based on Libretexts (2020), the standard enthalpy of formation is :
Enthalpy = Hf product - Hf reactant
Reactant : Product :
-2221 x 0.1 = -222.1 -1150.18 x 0.48 = -552.0864
-494 x 0.96 = -474.24 0 x 0.48 = 0
-222.1 -474.24 = -696.34 KJ -285.820 x 1.0944 = -312.801408
-393.5 x 0.72 = -283.82
-552.0864 - 312.801408 - 283.82 = -

-1,148.707808 KJ
Enthalpy : -1,148.707808 KJ + 696.34 KJ = -452.367808 KJ
Enthalpy Specification For Rocket Fuel
Original Enthalpy : -452.367808 KJ
Enthalpy of the rocket fuel : -452.367808 KJ / 2.81 = -160.9849850534 KJ
16
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Chemical reaction – ( 65 % ( 84.63 g ) to 35% ( 45.57 g ) ratio of sugar to potassium nitrate )
Molar mass of Sugar Molar mass of potassium nitrate
12 x 12 = 144 39 + 14 + 16(3) =
1 x 22 = 22 39 + 14 + 48 = 101 molar mass
11 x 16 = 176 45.57 g / 101 = 0.5 mol
144 + 22 + 176 = 342 molar mass
84.63 g / 342 = 0.2 mol
Potassium Carbonate : Water :
24/48 = 0.5 55/48 = 1.14
0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25 mol 1.14 x 0.5 = 0.57 mol
Nitrogen : Carbon Dioxide :
24/48 = 0.5 36/48 = 0.75
0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25 mol 0.75 x 0.5 = 0.375 mol
Mass of Rocket Fuel Specification
84.63 g of Sucrose : 53.55 cm3 Mass of Fuel :
45.57 g of Potassium Nitrate : 21.6 cm3 84.63 / 3.14 = 26.9522292994 g
53.55 + 21.6 = 75.15 cm3 ≈ 26.95 g
75.15 / 23.9268 = 3.1408295301 45.57 / 3.14 = 14.5127388535 g
≈ 3.14 ≈ 14.51 g
17
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Enthalpy
Based on Libretexts (2020), the standard enthalpy of formation is :
Enthalpy = Hf product - Hf reactant
Reactant : Product :
-2221 x 0.2 = -444.2 -1150.18 x 0.25 = -287.545
-494 x 0.5 = -247 0 x 0.25 = 0
-444.2 - 247 = -691.2 KJ -285.820 x 0.57 = -162.9174
-393.5 x 0.375 = -147.5625
-287.545 - 162.9174 - 147.5625 = -598.0249

KJ
Enthalpy : -598.0249 KJ + 691.2 KJ = -93.1751 KJ
Enthalpy Specification For Rocket Fuel
Original Enthalpy : -93.1751 KJ
Enthalpy of the rocket fuel : -93.1751 KJ / 3.14 = -29.6735987261 KJ
2.6 Total Efficiency of the Reaction

“The total quantity of energy the rocket generated is equal to the total enthalpy of the rocket -
drag energy - unreacted chemical potential = the energy of the rocket in reality.” according to Singh
(2015).
2.6.1 Drag Force Term
Since there are 2 types of drag forces: sheer drag and pressure drag, where turbulence plays a
great role in increasing or decreasing the shear and pressure drag. The increase in turbulence on the
surface of the object increases sheer drag while it decreases the pressure drag and vice versa.
18
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
For the calculation of the drag force, it is Fd=½ × 1.225 × v² × 0.04 × 78.5. The energy cost
for air resistance is that equation, only multiplied by height, but not the height of the rocket. Instead,
the height is the potential height of the rocket subtracted from the height achieved by the rocket in
reality. Also here we denote 0.04 as the coefficient of drag but here we assume that the cone of the
rocket is a streamlined body. And by the potential height means the height the rocket could have
covered if it were 100% efficient and if there is no air resistance.
“Since the drag force equation includes the velocity of the moving object, which in this case
is the rocket, then the drag force of the rocket would be increasing as well.” according to Singh
(2015). Based on BYJU’S (n.d.), the function that describes the change in the drag force is:
Fd = ½ p (v)² cd a
Where,
P is the density of the air
CD is the coefficient of drag
A is the cross-sectional area of the rocket
And everything else is the same as the previous equations
2.6.1.1 Maximum Height Achievable by the Rocket
The potential peak of height of the rocket would be: if we substitute the final velocity for the
initial velocity in the parabolic function for projectile motion plus the definite integral of the velocity
function.
Based on 4.3 projectile motion (n.d.), the resulting function for the maximum height of the rocket
would be :
d = v × t × sin ∅ – (½)g × t²
Or
((𝑣 × 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ∅)²)
d= 𝑔
×½
𝑡𝑓
H = Y + ∫ v dt
𝑡0
19
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Using integration by substitution, or the reverse chain rule to find the integral of velocity, it gives us:
∫ v dt=d
𝑑𝑚
d= (2((2KEM)^½))/- 𝑑𝑡
And then we would just substitute tf and t0 accordingly.
𝑑𝑚 𝑑𝑚
d=(2((2KE(m0-dm))^½))/- 𝑑𝑡
-(2((2Em0)^½))/- 𝑑𝑡
Meaning the total height achieved by the rocket is:
(𝑣 × 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ∅)²) 𝑑𝑚 𝑑𝑚
H= 𝑔
×½ + (2((2KE(m0-dm))^½))/- 𝑑𝑡
-(2((2Em0)^½))/- 𝑑𝑡
We would need to find the potential height of the rocket so that we would know if the air density
changes in the drag force function.
2.7 Weaponizable possibilities

For the weaponizable parts of things, if this sugar rocket is contained in a plastic soda bottle,
if the bottle doesn't burn just yet, it could generate enough pressure to go above the pressure threshold
of the soda bottle.
The highest pressure a 2L soda bottle can endure is around 130 psi to 170 psi, so we'll average
it out and say 150 psi, which is 10.3421 bars of pressure, or 10.20685912 of atmospheric pressure
Therefore we need to find the volume of the products of the chemical reaction, to know the
pressure exerted by the chemical reaction.
Since we would only be calculating the pressure created by this reaction which is the balanced
reaction because this reaction would be the best ratio, the pressure generated by this reaction is:
White mix volume : 72.359129475 cm3 Water vapor : 25 245.25 cm3

Potassium carbonate : 30.53 cm3 Carbon dioxide : 17 254.9 cm3
Nitrogen : 10 743.41 cm3
20
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
To calculate the pressure inside the bottle if the bottle does not explode at all:
( 2000 + ( vf - vi )) / 2000 = p (in atm)
( 2000 + ( 52,626.09 - 72.359129475 )) / 2000 = 27.2768654353 atm
To find the time it takes for the bottle to explode would be:
𝑑𝑝
10.20685912 / ( 𝑑𝑡
)=t
Assuming the shrapnel is 4 cm² and assuming the bottle is a perfect cylinder, the force
exerted is 10.20685912 atm which is 1034210.000334 pascals divided by the surface area of the
cylinder but in pieces of 4 cm², which will create an amount of 249 shrapnel pieces, which is
4,153.4538166024 newtons of force, and assuming the weight of the shrapnel is 5g which is 0.005 kg,
then the acceleration of the shrapnel would be 830,690.76332048m/s². For the speed of the shrapnels,
we need the burn time of the rocket.
“To see how much force is exerted by the shrapnel on our skins we need to find the derivative
of momentum, and assuming the time it takes the shrapnel to slow down is 0.001 seconds, we just
need to multiply the momentum by 1000, which is essentially 0.005 × v × 1000 = 5v.” according to
Foltran, Moro, Silva, Ferreira, Araki, & Marchi (2015).
But now the question is how fast is the shrapnel going after a certain amount of distance.
Well, we can conclude that the acceleration felt by the shrapnel because of the drag force is:
½𝑝𝑐𝑎 𝑣²
a= 𝑚
But from this, we can't tell what its implications are on the velocity of the shrapnel. However,
𝑣
we can conclude how much time it has before completely slowing down which is: 𝑎
=t
And we can evaluate that to be:

𝑣×𝑚
½𝑝𝑐𝑎 × 𝑣²
=t
𝑚 1
½𝑝𝑐𝑎
×𝑣 =t
21
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
And now we can rearrange some things so that we would find the velocity by finding the time it took
to reach its target, which is:
𝑡 ½𝑝𝑐𝑎 1
𝑚
= 𝑣
𝑚
𝑡 ½𝑝𝑐𝑎
=v
Now to calculate the time needed for the shrapnel to reach the target from the distance
between the explosion and the target, we can just integrate the velocity function and get the distance
function, and from that, we can get the time from distance, which is:
∫v dt = d
2𝑚
d= 𝑝𝑐𝑎
× ln|t|
𝑝𝑐𝑎𝑑
Ln|t| = 2𝑚
T=epcad/2m
And therefore the velocity can be denoted as:
v = m / epcad/2m × ½pca
Meaning the force exerted on our skin is 5m/epcad/2m × ½pca7
2.8 Hypothesis
Figure 2.8 Sugar Rocket Demonstration (Thompson, 2012)
If we use the recommended ratio ( ratio 1 ) of potassium nitrate and sugar, which is
73.73271889% of potassium nitrate to 26.26728111% of sugar, then we can efficiently generate thrust,
energy, and high-grade explosives.
7
With this configuration, the fuel will consist of 34.2 g of sucrose and 96 g of potassium nitrate, hence a bigger
pvc pipe is required to store the fuel itself.
22
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Chapter 3
Research Design and Methodology
3.1. Place & Time
Place : Christopher’s House
Time : October - March, 2022
3.2. Method
In this experiment, we collected the data on the thrust the rocket generates with the most
efficient mixture, the amount of power the rocket will generate, and the expansion rate of the chemical
reaction.
Collecting the data for force :
We used a scale to measure the force of the rocket in the unit of mass. We used the mass
derivative to find the acceleration derivative of the rocket. Then we are able to measure the force.
Since we know the thrust force is equal to the flow rate or the derivative of mass multiplied
by the velocity, but since the velocity here is the velocity of the escaping gasses, we would not be able
to determine the thrust force from this equation alone. But one thing that we do know is that the thrust
force is constant. Thus, if we place that idea into Newton’s second law then we would get the idea that
the force is constant while the mass is decreasing therefore the acceleration must be increasing and
𝑚𝑜
multiplied by a factor of 𝑑𝑚 . However, if we multiply the flowrate by jerk then we would
(𝑚0−(( 𝑑𝑡
) × 𝑡)))
get the derivative of the derivative of force which is 0 because the force as we learned from the first
equation is constant. And so the solution comes in that we look at both graphs at one particular point
in time so essentially, the mass and acceleration would be 1 number instead of a changing number. In
addition, since a0 is equal to 0 we can't use that term as was previously mentioned. Therefore, we
need to look at a fraction of the potential energy in the rocket we got from calculating the enthalpy,
and we just take into account a fraction of the potential energy because that fraction will be converted
to kinetic energy while the other fraction will be turned into heat.
23
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Collecting the data for the rocket’s energy output :
We used a rocket powered by the rocket engine to fly and record the maximum height of the
rocket. We used an altimeter to record the maximum height of the rocket and with the height, we can
determine the energy the rocket releases. The equation we will be using is F × H – based on 2.2.
Theory of possible weaponry :
We calculated the expansion rate of the chemical reaction to determine it has the possibility to
pressurize and explode a certain capsule.
3.3. Variables
Control Variables :
- The amount of rocket fuel per test

- The same rocket
- The same type of igniter
- The same apparatus used to record the experiment
Independent Variables :
- The applications of the chemical reaction

- The ratios of potassium nitrate to sugar ( 26.26728111% of potassium nitrate and
73.73271889% of sugar) (65% of sugar and 35% of potassium nitrate )
Dependent Variables ( 2 repetitions for each ratio ) :
- The amount of energy output of the rocket

- The amount of force the rocket generates
- The maximum height the rocket travels
- The time it takes for the rocket to reach its maximum height
24
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
3.4. Research Instruments

We used a variety of materials and apparatuses when conducting the experiment.
3.4.1. Apparatus
Apparatus needed to measure force :
- Scale
- Stopwatch
Apparatus needed to measure energy :
- Model rocket equipped with fins, - Wooden dowel

parachute, and altimeter
- Rubber hammer
- Blender
- Drill bit
Apparatus needed to theorize possible weaponry :
- A computer
3.4.2. Materials
- 3/4 ' 1m PVC

- Plastic fins
- Potassium nitrate
- String
- White sugar
- Drill Bit
- Baking soda
- 3/4 dowel 10'
- Kitty Litter
- Fuse
- Fabric for parachute

- Marker
- Plastic cone
- Plastic rocket body
25
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
3.5. Research Procedure

We had a certain series of procedures to maximize our chance of success. In this way, we can
achieve the goal of our experiment.
3.5.1. Working Process
How to achieve Goal of Experiment :
1. Determine the uses of potassium nitrate and sugar.
2. Research the chemical reaction ( the temperature produced, the amount of CO2 and water
produced )
3. Create a hypothesis regarding the effectiveness of the chemical reaction on every basis of use.
4. Plan an experiment to test the potassium nitrate and sugar chemical reaction for rocket fuel, as
an energy source, and as a modern weapon.
5. Initiate the experimentation.
6. Analyze the data of the experiment based on mass, maximum height, and time.
7. Conclude the effectiveness of the potassium nitrate and sugar reaction as rocket fuel, source
of energy, and modern weapon, as well as the most effective fly time to force ratio of
potassium nitrate to sugar.
How to create rocket and fuel :
- How to create a rocket (Thompson, 2015) :
1. Prepare materials 6. Create fins
2. Create cone 7. Create parachute
3. Create a parachute container 8. Assemble rocket
4. Create rocket body
5. Create rocket engine nozzle
26
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
- How to create rocket fuel (Thompson, 2015) :
1. Prepare materials
2. Mix sugar with potassium nitrate with the respective ratios
3. Compact kitty litter and rocket fuel into a PVC pipe using a wooden dowel
4. Hand Drill into the rocket engine until reaching kitty litter
5. Place fuse inside the drilled rocket
3.5.2. Data Analysis Technique
- We input the raw data into a series of equations to determine more information regarding the
chemical reaction.
27
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Chapter 4
Data Analysis
4.1 Testing the Chemical Reaction
We measured the difference in mass before and after the experiment. We pack the mixture of
potassium nitrate and sugar with their respective ratios into the PVC pipes. We plug in the values of
the initial mass, the difference in mass, and burn time into the force equation to get the force
magnitude.
Ratio 1 : 73.73271889% ( 34.16 g potassium nitrate ) to 26.26728111% ( 12.17 g Sugar )

Ratio 2 : 65 % ( 26.95 g Sugar ) to 35% ( 14.51 g Potassium Nitrate )
Weight of plastic tube : 39 g

Table 4.1 Ratio 1 and 2 Mass in Grams
Ratio Mass Before Mass After Experiment Difference In Mass Burn Time
Experiment
1 81 g 35 g 46 g 55 s
1 87 g 35 g 52 g 38 s
Average 84 g 35 g 49 g 46.5 s
2 83 g 36 g 47 g 45 s
2 83 g 81 g 2g 11 s
Average 83 g 58.5 g 24.5 g 28 s
Table 4.1 - 2 Ratio 1 and 2 Mass in Kilograms
Ratio Mass Before Mass After Experiment Difference In Mass Burn Time
Experiment
1 0.081 kg 0.035 kg 0.046 kg 55 s
1 0.087 kg 0.035 kg 0.052 kg 38 s
Average 0.084 kg 0.035 kg 0.049 kg 46.5 s
2 0.083 kg 0.036 kg 0.047 kg 45 s
2 0.083 kg 0.081 kg 0.002 kg 11 s
Average 0.083 kg 0.058.5 kg 0.024.5 kg 28 s
28
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Ratio 1
Force of the first ratio ( Trial 1 ) :

F=((2KE)^½)×((-½)m^-3/2)×(-dm/dt)×(m0-(dm/dt)×t)8
F=((2×18,430.32505782)^½)×((-½)0.0801^-3/2)×(-0.046/55)×(0.081-(0.046/55)×1)
F = 0.279 N
Force of the first ratio ( Trial 2 ) :

F=((2KE)^½)×((-½)m^-3/2)×(-dm/dt)×(m0-(dm/dt)×t)
F=((2×18,430.32505782)^½)×((-½)0.085^-3/2)×(-0.052/38)×(0.087-(0.052/38)×1)
F = 0.449 N
Ratio 2
Force of the second ratio ( Trial 1 ) :

F=((2KE)^½)×((-½)m^-3/2)×(-dm/dt)×(m0-(dm/dt)×t)
F=((2×15,661.5547739)^½)×((-½)0.081^-3/2)×(-0.047/45)×(0.083-(0.047/45)×t)
F = 0.328 N
Force of the second ratio ( Trial 2 ) :

F=((2KE)^½)×((-½)m^-3/2)×(-dm/dt)×(m0-(dm/dt)×t)
F=((2×15,661.5547739)^½)×((-½)0.082^-3/2)×(-0.002/11)×(0.083-(0.002/11)×t)
F = 0.056 N
Ratio Trial 1 Force Trial 2 Force Average Force
1 0.279 N 0.449 N 0.364 N
2 0.328 N 0.056 N 0.192 N
8
The formula for force used is derived from 2.1
29
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
4.2 Graph and Analysis
Figure 4.2 Force of Rocket Engine Simulation
Graph Specifics : Line Color Specifics :

- Time = in seconds - Force = Red
- Mass = Kilograms - Velocity = Yellow
- Force = Newtons - Acceleration = Orange
- Mass = Blue
This is a simulation demonstrating that if we increase the difference in mass the force
increases because the higher the flow rate the higher the force. If we increase the initial mass the force
decreases because initial mass is somewhat inversely proportional to force. Lastly, if we increase the
burn time the force will decrease because again force is directly proportional to flow rate. To specify
the time axis is using the si unit of time which is seconds, and the force is in units.
After we have recorded our experiment, we charted them in columns. The result is divided
between the change of mass, burn time and the force results. In this section, we determine whether the
result of the experiment is viable for success when attempted with the rocket.
30
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
4.2.1 Mass Before and After The Experiment

Here, we have the results of the mass before and after the experiment for both ratios 1 and 2.
The difference in mass can indicate the success rate of the rocket engine. The more mass dislodged
when burnt means the more efficient the reaction is.
4.2.1.1 Change of Mass of Ratio 1
Figure 4.2.1.1 Mass Before and After Experiment of Ratio 1
Based on the graph above, we can see that the mass decreased more than half after the
experiment. To be precise, the mass decreased by 46 g in the first trial and 52 g in the second trial.
From this, we can understand that the rocket engine is very efficient because the trial didn’t leave a
substantial amount of unreacted material that did not combust. From our measurements, the 3/4 inch
pipe, with a length of 5 inches weighs 39 g, which means that the reaction is efficient and successful.
31
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
4.2.1.2 Change of Mass of Ratio 2
Figure 4.2.1.2 Mass Before and After Experiment of Ratio 2
Based on the graph, there are 2 different results from the 2 trials of ratio 2. More precisely, the
mass decreased by 47 g in the first trial and 2 g in the second trial. From this, we can understand that
the rocket engine in the first trial is very efficient, similar to the results of figure 4.2.1.1. However, the
rocket engine in the second trial is not efficient because the reaction left a lot of unreacted material.
The results of ratios 1 and 2 would conclude that the ratio 2 rocket engine is unreliable even though
both ratio 1 and 2 rocket engines are lit using the same method and apparatus.
32
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
4.2.2 Burn Time

Here, the burn time determines whether or not the rocket engine will be efficient in creating
thrust; this is due to the less burn time the rocket engine has, the more thrust the rocket can produce
due to more fuel being burnt, and vice versa.
4.2.2.1 Burn Time of Ratio 1
Figure 4.2.2.1 Burn Time of Ratio 1
From the graph above, the rocket engine took 55 seconds to burn in the first trial and 38
seconds to burn in the second trial. The difference in burn time between trials 1 and 2 is 17 seconds.
This indicates that the reaction is unreliable even though the same method is being used to light the
rocket engine.
33
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
4.2.2.2 Burn Time Ratio 2
Figure 4.2.2.1 Burn Time of Ratio 2
From the graph above, the burn time of the trial 1 rocket engine is 45 seconds, and the burn
time of the trial 2 rocket engine is 11 seconds. This shows us that the reaction is much more
drastically unreliable than the ratio 1 reaction in figure 4.2.2.1 even though the same method is always
used to light the rocket engine.
34
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
4.2.3 Resulting Force

Here, the force results of ratios 1 and 2 can determine if the rocket engine is powerful enough
to lift our rocket, or at least the rocket engine itself.
4.2.3.1 Force Result of Ratio 1
Figure 4.2.3.1 Resulting Forces in Ratio 1
From the results above, the first trial of ratio 1 is around 0.3 N and that the second trial is
around 0.5 N. Based on the resultant force of both trials from ratio 1, we can infer that the rocket
engine will not be able to lift the rocket itself. In fact, during the time of the experiment, when the
rocket engine was lit, the rocket engine could not propel itself either. This is suspected due to the long
burn time that can be seen in figure 4.2.2.1 even though the reaction itself is completed as seen in
figure 4.2.2.1.
35
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
4.2.3.2 Force Result of Ratio 2
Figure 4.2.3.2 Resulting Forces in Ratio 2
Similarly to figure 4.2.3.1, the first trial of ratio 2 is around 0.3 N and the second trial is
around 0.05 N – which is very low. It can be inferred that the rocket would not lift up either since
these resultant forces are lower than the results from ratio 1. Again, this is suspected due to the long
burn time of trial 1 as seen in figure 4.2.2.2, and in trial 2, even though the burn time shown in figure
4.2.2.2 is short, the force created is minimal because the reaction itself was not complete — as seen in
figure 4.2.1.2.
36
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
4.3 The Most Efficient Ratio

From the observations regarding the difference in mass, burn time, and resultant force, the
most efficient ratio is ratio 1. This is due to the fact that ratio 1 is reliable in completing its reaction,
has a more reliable burn time than ratio 2, as well as exerts a larger average force than ratio 2.
4.4 Error Analysis

In conclusion, these rocket engines are not able to lift the rocket because of insufficient thrust.
There must be certain factors that are applied here that cause the insufficiency in thrust, and in turn,
cause the incapability of launching the rocket. There are several factors that could impact the rocket
engine to be insufficient in generating thrust. Some of which is human error, and others involve
external factors.
Human error factors :

- Error in measurement
- Error in the production of the rocket engine
External factors :
- Weather
- Humidity
- Temperature
- Atmospheric pressure
- Wind
- Nature
37
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Chapter 5 Conclusion
5.1 Conclusion
Fertilizer or potassium nitrate can be combined with sugar or sucrose along with heat to create
a flammable chemical reaction; therefore, our experiment has a goal of creating efficient thrust,
energy, and high-grade explosives with a specific ratio (ratio 1) of that chemical reaction. Overall, the
results of our experiments indicate that our rocket engine can generate energy efficiently. It was
proven in figure 4.2.1.1 where the graph suggests that the chemical reaction of ratio 1 went on to
combust all the reactants, leaving no observable unreacted material. Expectedly, ratio 2 was not able
to perform the chemical reaction to its fullest extent. In this case, it can be concluded that ratio 1 was
the best out of the two, which proves that our hypothesis was indeed correct.
However, our rocket engine built with either ratio 1 or 2 was not able to generate enough
thrust none the least. The amount of thrust generated was not able to lift the rocket engine itself up
hence it will not be able to lift the rocket at all. Besides that, theoretically, our experiment using ratio
1 can create high-grade explosives although not tested.
5.2 Suggestions
For those replicating this experiment, some suggestions are :
- Testing the rocket engine during a dry clear day.
- Use accurate measuring tools like a vernier caliper, measuring cylinder, and scale.
- Try the ratio recommended by the internet, 65% potassium nitrate to 35% sugar which may
work.
- Test our formulas for force and energy for reliability.
5.3 Future Work

For future experiments, we are looking forward to trying :
- The ratio recommended by the internet is 65% potassium nitrate to 35% sugar.
- Create rocket fuel using new combustible materials for greater energy output.
38
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
References
Straub, J. (n.d.). Trends in reactivity and the Periodic Table. John Straub's lecture notes. Retrieved
November 7, 2021, from
http://people.bu.edu/straub/courses/demomaster/no3periodic.html#:~:text=The%20reaction%
20of%20sugar%20and,be%20oxidized%20and%20emit%20light.&text=A%20mixture%20of
%20sugar%20and,(carbon%20dioxide%20and%20water).
Thompson, G. (2012, October 13). Homemade rocket fuel (R-candy) - youtube. Retrieved November
7, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUYxk-y-tU8.
Thompson, G. (2015, October 31). How to make "screw-lock" Sugar rockets - youtube. Retrieved
November 7, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v_utrMar9Y
Thompson, G. (2015, November 21). How to build a rocket (from scratch) - youtube. Retrieved
November 7, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2lDXoW78u0
Chieruzzi, M., Miliozzi, A., Crescenzi, T., Torre, L., & Kenny, J. M. (2015, December). A new phase
change material based on potassium nitrate with silica and alumina nanoparticles for thermal
energy storage. Nanoscale research letters. Retrieved November 7, 2021, from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4484553/#:~:text=The%20specific%20heat%
20of%20the,to%20the%20previous%20references%20%5B43%2C
Jayes, W. (n.d.). Specific heat capacity. Sugar. Retrieved November 7, 2021, from
http://www.sugartech.com/heatcapacity/index.php
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2021). Sucrose. Retrieved November 7, 2021, from
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C57501&Mask=2
Potassium nitrate. Properties of substance: potassium nitrate. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2021,
from http://chemister.ru/Database/properties-en.php?dbid=1&id=513
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2021). Potassium carbonate. Retrieved November 7,
2021, from https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C584087&Mask=2
Bhattacharjee, S. (2009, January 18). Molar enthalpy of formation of various substances. Retrieved
https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/combustion/Enth_Formation.html
BYJU'S. (n.d.). Work, energy and power - definition, examples, formula, units. BYJUS. Retrieved
November 7, 2021, from https://byjus.com/physics/work-energy-power/
Szyk, B. (n.d). Specific heat calculator. Omni Calculator. Retrieved November 7, 2021, from
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/specific-heat
Rule of mixtures calculator for specific heat capacity. Thermtest Inc. (2021, October 18). Retrieved
November 7, 2021, from https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/rule-of-mixtures
39
Probes
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.36
Libretexts. (2020, August 11). 7.4: Standard enthalpy of formation. Chemistry LibreTexts. Retrieved
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Valley_City_State_University/Chem_121/Chapter_7%3A
_Thermochemistry/7.4%3A_Standard_Enthalpy_of_Formation
4.3 projectile motion - university physics volume 1. OpenStax. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2021,
from
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/4-3-projectile-motion#:~:text=
h%20%3D%20v%200%20y%202,component%20of%20the%20initial%20velocity.
BYJU'S. (n.d). Drag force - definition, principle, discovery, formula, faqs. BYJUS. Retrieved
November 7, 2021, from https://byjus.com/physics/dragforce/
Smiley, J. (2013). Easy Pvc rockets. CreateSpace.
Foltran, A. C., Moro, D. F., Silva, N. D., Ferreira, A. E., Araki, L. K., & Marchi, C. H. (2015).
Burning rate measurement of KNSU propellant obtained by Mechanical Press. Journal of
Aerospace Technology and Management, 7(2), 193–199.
https://www.scielo.br/j/jatm/a/QdSj4XH9xvBrFPtbBJ4MCry/?format=pdf&lang=en
Singh, A. (2015). Sugar Based Rocket Propulsion System-AbhijeetMaking, Analysis & Limitations.
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Applications (IJETA) – Volume 2 Issue 5, ,
2(5), 30–37. https://doi.org/http://www.ijetajournal.org/volume-2/issue-5/IJETA-V2I5P7.pdf
40

The Influence of Different Concentrations of Fuel Composition On The Thrust Produced by Model Rockets

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Different Concentrations of Fuel Composition On The Thrust Produced by Model Rockets

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Different Concentrations

of Fuel Composition on the Thrust

Santa Laurensia School

Alam Sutera - Pakulonan - Serpong Utara - Tangerang Selatan - Banten

Title of Research : The Influence of Different Concentrations of Fuel Composition on

Advisor and Mentor Language Advisor

Inge Diredja Quindarta Yudi Atmanta

Principal of Santa Laurensia Junior High School

Tangerang Selatan, 7 October, 2021.

3.1. Place & Time 26

Table of Tables, Graphs, & Figures

1.2 Research Problem

1.3 The purpose of the research

1.4 Significant of the research

1.5 Boundaries of research

1.6 Thesis statement

1.7 Logic of Thinking

2.2. Measurement of Energy

At t the mass will be mt and so does the at making:

Therefore we would arrive to the equation of2:

So we would get the force equation as follows:

2.2.1 Calculation of Total Energy Release

- SHC of sucrose : 1.244 J/g/°C (Jayes, n.d.)

- Q = m×shc×dT (Szyk, n.d)

Amount of Energy Released ( 73.73271889% ( 34.16 g potassium nitrate ) to 26.26728111% (

Based on the Rule of mixtures (2021), the rule of mixtures is :

Amount of Energy Released ( 65 % ( 84.63 g ) to 35% ( 45.57 g ) ratio of sugar to potassium

Based on the Rule of mixtures (2021), the rule of mixtures is :

2.3 Different Concentrations of Potassium Nitrate to Sugar

2.4 Rocket Engine Specifications

2.5 Enthalpy of the Rocket Fuel

- Sucrose : -2221 (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2021)

- Potassium Nitrate : -494 (Property of Substance, n.d.)

- Potassium Carbonate : -1150.18 (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2021)

- Nitrogen : 0 (Bhattacharjee, 2009)

- Water : -285.820 (Bhattacharjee, 2009)

- Carbon Dioxide : -393.5 (Bhattacharjee, 2009)

Chemical reaction – ( 73.733% ( 96 g ) to 26.267% ( 34.2 g ) ratio of potassium nitrate to sugar )

Molar mass of Sugar Molar mass of potassium nitrate

1 x 22 = 22 39 + 14 + 48 = 101 molar mass

11 x 16 = 176 48/5 = 9.6

144 + 22 + 176 = 342 molar mass 9.6 x 0.1 = 0.96 mol

5/48 = 0.1 mol 0.96 x 101 = 96 g

0.1 x 342 = 34.2 g

Potassium Carbonate : Water :

24/48 = 0.5 55/48 = 1.14

0.5 x 0.96 = 0.48 mol 1.14 x 0.96 = 1.0944 mol

138 x 0.48 = 66.24 g 18 x 1.0944 = 19.09 g

Nitrogen : Carbon Dioxide :

24/48 = 0.5 36/48 = 0.75

0.5 x 0.96 = 0.48 mol 0.75 x 0.96 = 0.72 mol

28 x 0.48 = 13.44 g 44 x 0.72 = 31.68 g

Mass of Rocket Fuel Specification

34.2 g of Sucrose : 21.64 cm3 Mass of Fuel :

96 g of Potassium Nitrate : 45.5 cm3 34.2 / 2.81 = 12.1708185053 g

21.64 + 45.5 = 67.14 cm3 ≈ 12.17 g

67.14 / 23.9268 = 2.8060584784 96 / 2.81 = 34.1637010676 g

Based on Libretexts (2020), the standard enthalpy of formation is :

Enthalpy = Hf product - Hf reactant

-2221 x 0.1 = -222.1 -1150.18 x 0.48 = -552.0864

-494 x 0.96 = -474.24 0 x 0.48 = 0

-222.1 -474.24 = -696.34 KJ -285.820 x 1.0944 = -312.801408